« 이전계속 »
which I have examined ; . . . on the other hand, its measurements agree equally well with those of some European skulls. And assuredly there is no mark of degradation about any part of its structure. It is in fact a fair average human skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brains of a savage.” Aeby, Lucae, and Virchow also say that this skull has no peculiarities which do not exist now-a-days.” The so-called Neanderthal skull was found, together with some other human bones, in 1856, in a cave with the remains of extinct animals. Professor Fuhlrott of Elberfeld was the first to make it known, and since then many treatises have been written about it.” Only the upper parts of the skull, situated above the roof of the orbits, have been preserved. The cranium is of unusual size, and of elliptical form. Its most striking peculiarity consists in the unusual development of the frontal sinuses, owing to which the superciliary ridges which coalesce completely in the centre are rendered so prominent that the frontal bone exhibits a considerable hollow or depression behind them. The forehead is narrow and low, whereas the middle and hinder portions of the cranial arch are well developed. The importance of the discovery of this skull has been much exaggerated by some. Schaafhausen was inclined to see in the Neanderthal skull the “type of the man of the Tertiary period;” the Englishman King wished to draw from it conclusions as to the earlier existence of a special race of men, essentially different from the present race, and this race he proposed to call Homo Neanderthalensis.” Lyell, however, observes, “As to the remarkable Neanderthal skeleton, it is at present too isolated and exceptional, and its age too uncertain, to warrant us in relying on its abnormal and ape-like characters as bearing on the question whether the farther back we trace man into the past, the more we shall find him approach in bodily conformation to those species of the anthropoid quadrumana which are most akin to him in structure.” And Huxley says even more decidedly, “In no sense then can the Neanderthal bones be regarded as the remains of a human being intermediate between man and apes. At most they demonstrate the existence of a man whose skull may be said to revert somewhat towards the pithecoid type.”* Since then several eminent anatomists and anthropologists have expressed their opinions about the Neanderthal skull. Aeby, Virchow, Hyrtl, Lucae all say that it is undoubtedly a pathological skull, and ought therefore to be no more considered in the question of the skull formation of the earliest men than a microcephalous skull is considered in the question of the present formation.”
* Evidences, p. 156. * Archiv für Anthr. vi. 14. A. von Frantzius, Die vierte allg. Versammlung der deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Brunswick 1874, p. 48. • C. Fuhlrott, Der fossile Mensch aus dem Meanderthal, und sein Verhältniss zum Alter des Menschengeschlechts, Duisburg 1865. Archip für Anthr. viii. 66.
* Archiv für Anthr. v. 118. * Ausland, 1863, p. 1056. * Antiquity of Man, p. 419. * Evidences, p. 157.
* Aeby, Die Schädelformen, p. 89. Virchow, Die Urbevölkerung Europa’s, p. 46. Cf. Frantzius, Die 4 allg. Vers, etc. p. 48. Lucae in the Archiv für Anthr. vi. 14. J. W. Spengel, Archiv für Anthr. viii. 49,
Neither in the past then do we find any intermediate forms which are calculated to bridge over the gulf between man and the ape, and we are justified in saying that even if according to the theory of descent it were shown to be likely that several nearly connected species of animals had a common stock, this conclusion would not properly be applied to a common descent of men and apes; because even if we only consider the bodily conditions, they are separated from one another by a wider gulf than are the higher apes from the lower, or than are any two different species of animals which can be called nearly related, and this gulf is filled up by no intermediate forms.
“Even in the oldest times,” says Aeby, “no forms of human skulls have been found which are not in existence now-a-days. Any believer in the truth of the theory of descent may no doubt consistently apply it to men, but he must not hope to be able to adduce one single fact in support of his hypothesis from the history of mankind, so far as we can trace it at present. As far back as we can go, we find man in his present shape. The only likeness between man and the pithecoid type exists in the caricatures which have been made by several authors, with a complete contempt for truth by exaggerating single features.”
Considering these results of anthropological inquiry, it is astonishing that two contemporary French theologians should have brought forward the old preAdamite hypothesis, and should have supposed that the oldest human remains found by geologists are not those of men of our race. Fabre d’Envieu thinks that these discoveries point to the fact of the existence on the earth, before the creation of man which is described in the Hexameron, of “races of men, or some other reasonable animals,” who had died out before the creation of our common ancestor." H. de Walroger rather more cautiously suggests that a kind of animal may possibly have existed in the Tertiary period as “a forerunner of man,” which more nearly resembled the human type than do the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orang, but which nevertheless was incapable of the intellectual, moral, and religious development of which all races of our species are capable.” At any rate, these could not have been men, nor could they have been reasonable animals.
denies the pathological character of the Neanderthal skull, but he
describes several “neanderthaloid” skulls which are now in existence,
especially some from the islands of the Zuyder Zee. * Die Schädelformen, p 90.
* Les origines, etc. pp. 329, 454,478.
* Les précurseurs de l'homme à l'époque tertiaire, Correspondant, t. 93, p. 456. These theologians follow Boucher de Perthes, who, speaking of the race of men who made the implements found by him at Amiens (see Lect. 35), says: “Ces hommes n'ont plus leurs håritiers sur la terre ; nous n'en sommes point les fils; le chaos les separe de la création actuelle.”
It is admitted by theologians, as I have mentioned in my discussion on the theory of descent, that possibly organic life may have begun with simple forms, and have developed gradually into its later multiplicity— only that this did not take place entirely through influences and forces working by chance, as is assumed in the Darwinian theory, but because, as Michelis expresses it, the Creator chose the method of developing the organic form genetically as the way of attaining to the perfect organization, which in man was united to intellectual development." In connection with this some” even think that the Biblical teaching will admit of our believing that the creation of man did not take place by the forming of dead matter into a living being, to which all the qualities and attributes of man were given simultaneously, but by the process of adding to the highest and most man-like existing creatures the distinguishing characteristics of human nature. This of course would involve not only a higher development of the faculties which are common to both man and
* See above, p. 115.
* See Warington, Week of Creation, p. 124; also Frohschammer, Das Christenthum, etc. p. 185; and St. George Mivart, On the Genesis of Species, London 1871, p. 277; cf. Contemporary Review, vol. xix. (January 1872) p. 185; Dublin Review, N. S. vol. xviii. (No. 35, January 1872) p. 198.